7 comments:

Actually, this Sawdust post is incoherent. If you know the theory of limited constitutional government laid out by the founders (in The Federalist, for example), our system is designed to thwart and check abusive governmental authority at every turn. The GOP back in '64 with the Goldwater campaign hoped to return to historic founding principles in the face of rising governmental bureaucracy and the rise modern liberalism (in contrast to the classical liberalism of Jefferson). In any case, war criminals are tried by the victors. Who's going to hold Nuremburg-style proceedings for G.W.? Kofi Annan and the rest of the corrupt, anti-American U.N.? Further, all the difficulties Bush currently faces, for example, losing the Guantanamo case at the Supreme Court, and the threat to congressional Republicans from the Democrats this fall, illustrates just how well the American democracy is doing today. Leftist name-callers -- who always denounce this administration as "fascist" -- just hate America and can't stand any president who stands up rightly for our sovereignty and interests in the world.

first of all, people who question the president do not hate america. and the people that are questioning his power-grabs come from both sides of the aisle, so your whole "leftist name-caller" statement is pure bullshit.

second, tell me ONE thing that has threatened the sovereignty of the USA since Bush has been president.

Donald, you are losing ground quickly. I've accepted your feedback on the use of fascist to describe the Bush Administration but stand committed to my belief that many of the Bush principles - or tactics - mirror those of fascist governments past and present. More and more educated Americans are seeing our cowboy leader in the same light.

As a PolySci Professor, you hardly do yourself-or your profession-good by lumping anyone who uses the word fascist to describe our increasingly authoritarian govenment as leftists or as haters of America. This is right-wing rhetoric, coming from one who considers himself "moderately conservative." Such an assertion is insipid.

There is no nice way to respond to your belief that Dubya is standing up for our sovereignty and interests in the world except to say it is pure bullshit! He is married to big business and his bible. Look at the election-year games his lakey, Republican Party puppets play - we'll pay increasingly poverty-locked Americans a tiche more as long as we can cut the estate tax on the wealthiest citizens. Sick I say. Sick!

I will finish reading the contents of your blog but am increasingly convinced that placing a link to your thoughts does not so much support a balanced viewpoint as it shows the imbalance demonstrated by the conservative right. I appreciate some of your views but in this case, you're floundering in the deep end of the pool and no one is likely to toss you a ring!

Stuff

Followers

Random quote:

"As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."
Dwight David Eisenhower.

Blog Archive

Other stuff

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.